Case Summary (G.R. No. L-26053)
Key Dates
• 1945–1947: Unlawful entry and construction by respondents
• November 1947 & January–March 1948: Issuance of revocable occupancy permits by Mayors Fugoso and de la Fuente
• September 14, 1961: Thirty-day notice to vacate and remove structures
• February–March 1962: Demand for rental arrears and fifteen-day vacate notice
• July 1962: Filing of Civil Case No. 51087 in the Court of First Instance of Manila
• February 21, 1967: Decision by the Supreme Court
Applicable Law
• 1935 Philippine Constitution, Article XIV, Section 5 (free public primary instruction; obligation to maintain education system)
• 1939 Revised Charter of the City of Manila: Section 11(b) (mayor’s duty to safeguard city lands); Section 50 (judicial notice of municipal ordinances)
• Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila, Sections 34 and 86 (forcible entry and building permits)
• Ordinance No. 4566 (1962–1963 Manila City Budget appropriation of ₱100,000 for school expansion)
• Civil Code, Article 694(5) (public nuisance per se)
• Rules of Court: Rule 70, Section 1 (one-year limitation for forcible entry/detainer); Rule 124, Section 5 (judicial notice)
Facts
After liberation, respondents squatted on city property and built second-class housing without consent or building permits. Mayors issued revocable “lease contract” permits in 1947–48, charging token monthly rentals. By February 1962, arrears totaled ₱7,580.69. The City Engineer and Treasurer ordered removal and payment; respondents refused. The City then sued for possession, rent arrearages, and continuing rental.
Issue 1: City’s Need for the Premises
The trial court found that Ordinance 4566 earmarked ₱100,000 for an additional building at the adjacent school, establishing a pressing public purpose. Although respondents objected to Exhibit E (the appropriation certification), the court properly took judicial notice of the municipal ordinance under the Manila Charter. Even if the certification were excluded, the City’s dominical right to possession is paramount and respondents’ revocable permits did not vest a perpetual interest.
Issue 2: Status as Tenants
Respondents claimed tenant status. Their original entry was without consent; dwellings lacked building permits; and the “lease contracts” were revocable at will. Squatting remains unlawful, and no official permit can legalize forcible entry on public land. Mayors lacked authority to convert trespassers into tenants. Accordingly, respondents never acquired any lawful tenancy.
Issue 3: Public Nuisance
The existing structures obstruct the City’s constitutionally mandated duty to establish and maintain an adequate system of public education and to provide free primary instruction. Housing elementary school children is a perennial challenge; delay in scho
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-26053)
Facts of Ownership and Entry
- The City of Manila owns contiguous parcels in Malate covered by Torrens Titles Nos. 49763, 37082 and 37558, bounded by Kansas, Vermont and Singalong streets.
- Between 1945 and 1947, without the city’s knowledge or consent, defendants entered the premises and erected houses of second-class materials.
- No building permits were obtained from the city for these structures, rendering the constructions illegal from the outset.
Permits Issued by the Mayor
- In November 1947, Mayor Valeriano E. Fugoso granted written permits, labeled “lease contracts,” to fifteen named occupants, subject to conditions and nominal rentals.
- In early 1948, Mayor Manuel de la Fuente issued similar permits to Isabelo Obaob and Gerardo Garcia (in the name of Marta A. Villanueva).
- Eight other defendants never exhibited any permit.
Rental Charges and Delinquencies
- Monthly rentals were fixed according to the area occupied, ranging from ₱1.79 to ₱10.53 per month.
- As of February 1962, arrearages against twenty-three occupants totaled ₱7,580.69, with two occupants noted as paid up to early 1962.
School Expansion and Notice to Vacate
- The adjacent Epifanio de los Santos Elementary School faced an urgent need for expansion.
- On September 14, 1961, the City Engineer, under mayoral directive, ordered all occupants to vacate within thirty days and remove their constructions.
- In February–March 1962, the City Treasurer demanded payment of arrears and gave a further fifteen-day notice to vacate; defendants refused.
Lower Court Proceedings and Decision
- The City filed Civil Case No. 51087 in the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover possession.
- The trial court ordered defendants to vacate, to pay all arrears indicated opposite their names, to pay monthly rentals from March 1962 until vacatur, and to pay costs.
- Defendants appeale